MauledAgain

The growing awareness among Americans that the at least a significant number of the ultra rich hold them in disdain, delight in the diminution of the middle class, consider the poor to be “takers” addicted to entitlement, and have failed to come through with the promise of a better economy for all that justified reductions in their tax bills has put at least some of the wealthy into a panic. How else to explain the sudden full-court press defense of the ultra rich, wrapped in claims that they are being persecuted in a Holocaust-style manner, work harder than everyone else, are more important than everyone else, and deserve to be orders of magnitude more prosperous than 99 percent of the nation. During the past week and a half, these ridiculous claims were the subject of my commentaries in Getting to the Root of the Problem, Absurdity Breeds More Absurdity, Income and Wealth Inequality: A Threat, Not a Distraction, and Working Hard?.

Now comes an even more obnoxious reaction from the same ultra wealthy fellow who has explained he feels as though he is being persecuted in the same manner that Jews were exterminated in Nazi-dominated Europe. Tom Perkins, as reported in this report and many others, has proposed that voting should be limited to people who pay taxes, and that the number of votes available to a person should reflect the amount of money that the person has. Thus, according to Perkins, someone with $1 billion of assets would get 1 billion votes, whereas a person with $100 of assets would get 100 votes. Perkins explained that “it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes.” Perkins did not explain why corporations should be a role model for anything.

If there’s anything worse than a defensive ultra wealthy person with an exaggerated sense of self-worth, it’s an ignorant, defensive ultra wealthy person with an exaggerated sense of self-worth. Aside from infants, toddlers, some children, and some people in comas, everyone pays taxes. People pay sales taxes, liquid fuel taxes, alcohol taxes, real property taxes, state, local, and federal income taxes, social security taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, tobacco taxes, excise taxes on tires, and so on. Few people pay all of these taxes, but just about everyone pays at least one, and generally two, three, or more, of these taxes. So Perkins’ proposal wouldn’t really make much of a difference in who votes.

Though adverse reaction to Perkins’ proposal has been almost universal, most people have focused on the outrageousness of his attitude and the equation of wealth with voting booth value. The best voters, of course, are those who are well-informed, thoughtful, wide-minded, and sensible, whereas only some of the ultra wealthy have those qualities. The administrative nightmare of figuring out how many votes a person receives is alone proof that Perkins lacks the ability to think things through before tossing out grenades in defense of his indefensible position. Is the voter’s wealth measure when registering? When voting? Is it the average wealth since the last election, measured monthly, quarterly, annually? Who audits the claims? Does photo-ID come into play when everyone claims to be a trillionaire?

What gets my attention isn’t simply the outrageousness of what Perkins suggested, but what he has revealed, perhaps inadvertently, about the mindset of ultra rich like himself. He could not have been any clearer had he simply come out and said, “We, the ultra rich, want to own and rule the world, leaving you as peasants, albeit in a so-called democracy where you can cast token votes that mean nothing. We have been unhappy since the demise of serfdom, slavery, and keeping peasants down on the farm.” Perkins has done the nation and the world a favor. He has let the ultra rich cat out of the bag. Not that it was a secret, but now there is proof, from the mouth of one of them, that the tax cuts for the wealthy, the destruction of the middle class, the demonization of the poor, the tagging of ordinary citizens as “takers,” the rejection of entitlement claims other than those asserted by the ultra rich, the disrespect for the hard work of the 99 percent, the manipulation of the markets, the buying of legislatures, and the duping of voters with spurious and hypocritical claims to be guardians of things voters hold dear all fit together in a mosaic matched wonderfully to the “we are better than the rest of you and deserve to be your overlords” mentality of Perkins and fellow travelers.

When it comes to why Perkins pulled back the curtain, there are two possibilities. One is that it was accidental, a thoughtless utterance by someone losing inhibitory control in reaction to the pressure and panic of a rising tide of political, moral, and electoral opposition. Considering the absurdity of Perkins’ previous comments and the apparent misconception that many people pay no taxes, it is not implausible to conclude that he blurted out something before he realized he was saying too much. The other is that it was intentional. If so, the question is why. What advantage is gained by revealing outright the heretofore badly-kept secret goal of economic world domination and its corollary electoral, political, military, and social domination? Is it a matter of making the point appear so ridiculous that no one will take it seriously? That sort of ploy is not new. Perhaps a reaction of “That’s so ridiculous they couldn’t possibly be planning that sort of outcome” is what they want. If so, it hasn’t quite worked out that way, because the outcry of outrage has been widespread.

On Wednesday, in Absurdity Breeds More Absurdity, I noted one defender of Sam Zell’s silly claim that the top one percent works harder by resorting to another absurdity, that of measuring how hard a person works by referring to how many hours a person works. Now along comes Robert Frank, who in a Wall Street Journal blog, uses hours worked as the measuring stick for how hard a person works.

As I suggested in Absurdity Breeds More Absurdity, caloric expenditure surely is a better measure of how hard a person works. It may not be the best measure, but for the moment it’s as good as there is. Taking a look at Calories Burned During Work, Occupations and Hobbies, it becomes clear that work such as mowing lawns, shoveling snow, cleaning houses, farming, coal mining, fire fighting, digging ditches, and nursing requires far more effort than making telephone calls, sitting in meetings, and socializing at lobbying events. Lest anyone offer that people in jobs not involving intense physical labor aren’t working as hard as the ultra rich, one burns more calories playing a musical instrument, bar tending, helping customers as a store clerk than wheeling and dealing with money and power brokering.

And even if someone could demonstrate that people holding hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in wealth, or pulling down tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in income, somehow are “working harder” than everyone else, it is inconceivable that they can demonstrate that these folks are working hundreds and thousands of times harder than everyone else. Falling back on the “that’s what the market provides” argument overlooks the collaboration permeating the supposedly “free” market of high level income and wealth.

In recent posts, I have been exploring the defensive positions taken by those who consider excessive income and wealth inequality not only as a contrived problem but also as a condition beneficial to everyone. For example, in Getting to the Root of the Problem, I rejected the claim that income and wealth inequality is a simple outcome caused by poor people not working hard enough.

The defenders of the trend that will bring us one person owning the world have stepped up their marketing campaign to convince the majority of voters, almost none of whom are ultra rich, that their best chances lie with the ultra rich and their agenda. Now that the world has reached the point where 85 people own as much as do the poorest half of the world’s population, as dissected in this report, it is only a matter of time before 50 people own as much as do the poorest three-quarters of the world’s population, and perhaps just decades before 25 people own as much as does everyone else. The current situation and the direction in which things are going are not accidents, and the vigorous defense being mounted by the perpetrators is glaring proof of what is being planned.

It is disturbing to read claims that income and wealth inequality is a good thing, that it does not matter, and that it is a distraction. One wonders how well orchestrated this defense of inequality has become. Consider several recent attempts to push the blame for the nation’s economic problems away from the causes.

Economist David R. Henderson argues that most people do not care about income inequality, and that this makes sense because income inequality doesn’t matter, a point he justifies by claiming that so long as everyone’s income increases, the gap makes no difference. As for his first point, there’s no doubt that many people are deeply concerned about it, especially when they are given the opportunity to learn why life has become increasingly challenging from an economic perspective. As for his second point, for most people, income in real terms has either declined or increased at a rate that does not keep up with the increases in the costs of food, energy, health, and similar necessities. Worse, when economists argue, as Henderson does, that the poor are better off because more of them now own refrigerators, cars, and cell phones, he overlooks the fact that this has happened because of the government transfer programs so detested by those who delight in the growing income and wealth gap. What would the economic situation be if they had their way by eliminating all social welfare programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Romneycare-turned-Obamacare, repealing the income tax, revoking most regulations, and giving their ultra rich sponsors unrestrained opportunity to do what they want? The things that they want to eliminate are the very things that have spared the nation from an even worse outcome, and that’s why there is so much effort from their direction to remove those last lines of defense against tyrannical oligarchy and the reduction of democracy to a mockery.

Economist David Brooks also claims that income and wealth inequality is not the issue. He argues that the plight of the poor is caused by “bad schools, no jobs for young men, broken families, neighborhoods without mediating institutions.” In many respects, he’s correct. Fixing those problems would help reduce the inequality. What he doesn’t address, for obvious reasons, is that those problems for the most part are caused by the tax destruction campaign waged by the ultra rich under the pretext of helping the very people that tax destruction harms, and by the bottom-line mentality that exalts next week’s profits over the long-term economic health of the nation. Jobs are not available for young men in part because those jobs have been shifted overseas and in part because the nation’s school systems are a mess thanks to insufficient funding and attacks on the far-from-rich teaching profession. As I’ve asked in previous posts, does it make sense to destroy tomorrow’s consumers if the lack of consumers means the long-run failure of the businesses generating profits and wealth for the ultra rich?

Economist Robert Samuelson characterizes income and wealth inequality as the consequence, rather than the cause, of the nation’s economic problems. But in his attempt to prove this point, he claims that “the rich got rich by running profitable small businesses, . . . creating big enterprises, . . . being at the top of lucrative occupations, . . . managing major companies or inheriting fortunes. He writes this in a way to suggest that inherited wealth is a miniscule factor, whereas inherited wealth is what brings many of the ultra rich into their position as ultra rich. Samuelson’s list of examples, such as owners of car dealerships, lawyers, doctors, actors, athletes, and the like is misleading because very few car dealership owners, lawyers, doctors, actors, and athletes are close to being within the ranks of the ultra rich. Samuelson also makes the same point Henderson does, by trying to prove that everyone’s inflation-adjusted incomes increased wonderfully from 1980 until 2010, though he concedes that the rate of growth among the top one percent was far more than what was experienced by everyone else. The flaw in Samuelson’s statistics is that he reaches back to 1980, thus taking into account the impact of decisions and events before the Revolution of the Rich in 2001. Gains accrued by the 99 percent from 1980 through 2000 aren’t much help to people trying to make ends meet in 2014 because their situations deteriorated during the decade of the double zeroes. And we know what happened during that era, and why it was a bad thing to do.

That income inequality is a bad thing is clear, even though its defenders choose to ignore the signs or excuse them away. In England, research indicates that 25-year difference in life expectancy exists between London’s wealthy and its deprived. Two medical researchers have demonstrated that income inequality contributes to the growing health problems of the nation. Other researchers have determined that assortative mating, the phenomenon of people marrying within their income bracket, contributes not only to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, thus widening income and wealth gaps, but also to the reduction of marriages between people near the edges of their income brackets. These gaps also contribute to the decline in the number of marriages which, in turn, as even admitted by the defenders of inequality, contributes to even more income and wealth inequality. The inability to support a family on one salary, the growing insecurity of job tenure, and workplace stress fueled by a profits-is-all-that-matters mentality feeding the money addiction of the ultra rich are major factors in the divorces that the defenders of inequality identify as a cause of inequality. In other words, income and wealth inequality feeds upon itself as it spirals into oligarchy.

The claim that income and wealth inequality is not a cause of poverty overlooks the connection between wealth accumulation in the hands of a few and the lack of education, jobs, health care, and well-being among the poor. The Revolution of the Rich was justified by claims that putting more money in the hands of the rich would solve problems because the rich are the job creators. Yet, if they created jobs, they didn’t create very many in this nation, and the surely didn’t create enough. Americans fell for the siren song, and the economy is now crashing on the rocks. True, the captain and crew will get off the sinking ship because they have the resources but the passengers are left with broken promises and cutbacks in lifeboats and life preservers. And, not surprisingly, the captain and the crew are now trying to blame the passengers for the navigation errors, the false promises, and the lack of lifeboats and life preservers.

In my last post, Getting to the Root of the Problem, I criticized Sam Zell for, among other things, his absurd claim that the ultra rich work harder than everyone else. Much to my surprise, someone has actually tried to defend this claim, on equally absurd grounds. On Erin Burnett Out Front, one Reihan Salam tried to justify Zell’s claim by pointing out that the ultra rich work upwards of 3,000 hours each year while those not in the top one percent barely crack the 2,000 hour barrier.

The silliness of this retort of desperation is inescapable. Here are just a few facts for Zell, Salam, and the rest of the elitists to consider.

First, all sorts of people hold jobs or practice professions in which they put in more than 2,000 hours each year, and a more than a few top 3,000 hours. For example, it doesn’t take much of a bad winter for utility crews to rack up 16-hour days. And they can’t take an offsetting vacation when the next storm shows up a week later to cause more damage.

Second, because of the ways in which the ultra rich have managed to push down the middle class and demonize the poor, many people are compelled to work more than one job, which causes the number of hours that they invest in labor to surpass by far the 2,000-hour limit Salam thinks applies to the rank-and-file.

Third, and this is the most important point, the number of hours spent at work does not correlate to the difficulty of that work nor does it measure how hard a person works. What are the ultra rich doing during those 3,000 hours? To use a better measure, how many calories are they burning? How much of their time is devoted to conversation, lunch and dinner meetings, cocktail parties, fund raisers, and similar events? If they think that’s hard work, someone needs to hand them some hard hats, shovels, and picks, and guide them into a coal mine.

Having argued with people who clearly are wrong but who cannot let go of their errors, I recognize the defensive tactics that have been adopted by those still intent on ruling the world through means other than democracy. I understand why it is so difficult – hard work, perhaps – to let go, because letting go unravels the entire arrangement. Yet being exposed for absurd and silly arguments would not happen if those absurd and silly arguments had not been advanced. The fact that these sorts of outrageous claims are popping up with increasing frequency suggests that Americans’ growing awareness of what has been going on is more than an idle threat to the power and money addiction that is doing no less damage to this nation than any other sort of addiction.

According to numerous reports, including this one, billionaire Sam Zell has rushed to the defense of Tom Perkins, the venture capitalist who compared complaints about staggering income and wealth inequality as equivalent to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. Although Perkins was compelled to apologize for his comment, Zell tried to paper it over by explaining that although the word persecution was not “the right way to describe treatment of the top 1 percent of earners,” the criticism of the ultra rich is fueled by envy, and the income and wealth inequality is the fault of government regulations. Zell then compounded his defensive posture by claiming that the reason people are critical of the income and wealth inequality is that “it’s politically convenient to do so.” He suggested that people should emulate the ultra rich, and followed that up with a claim that “The 1 percent work harder, the 1 percent are much bigger factors in all forms of our society.”

Is he serious? Clearly what’s at the root of the problem is the belief that those who do well, no matter how that comes about, work harder and are more important. That explains the war on the poor and the attempt to destroy the middle class. People aren’t complaining about income and wealth inequality because they want to be billionaires. They’re complaining because they want to be able to feed their children, take care of the children’s education and medical needs, and put a roof over their heads. People aren’t complaining about income and wealth inequality because it’s politically convenient to do so. They’re complaining because they understand that it is morally and ethically reprehensible to create and support systems that funnel increasing amounts of wealth into the hands of a oligarchy that ultimately is destined to become a global tyranny that promises even more dire economic distress for all but the economic elite.

The absurdity of Zell’s comments is evident from his silly claim that the one percent work harder. I wonder if Zell has ever shoveled out his own driveway, or raked leaves, or did laundry, or dug ditches, or changed engine oil, or put chains on police car tires. I wonder if he has ever tried climbing icy utility poles to restore power in bitter cold weather. I wonder if he has worked in a coal mine, or stood on his feet for hours in an operating room or a fast-food restaurant. I wonder if he has tried to handle a room full of kindergartners, or walked behind a refuse truck collecting trash and recycling. I wonder if he has delivered newspapers in the dark, the rain, the snow, and the ice, lugging dozens of pounds of material to subscribers. I checked his wikiedia biography and if he’s done any of those things it hasn’t been included. What’s evident is that he gambled with other people’s money, got lucky, and now considers himself a hard worker. It must be muscle-weakening and strength-sapping to wheel and deal in the world of finance. For every Sam Zell who gets lucky playing the finance gambling game, there are hundreds who tried and failed. According to Zell, those who fail simply didn’t work hard enough.

Zell seems to think that the one percent work hard, even though a significant number of the one percent are living on fortunes handed down to them. Perhaps their grandparents or great-grandparents worked hard. So what? And in some instances even the ancestral wealth accumulators didn’t work all that hard. Until someone has experienced digging ditches, fixing utility lines, mining coal, collecting trash, or similar endeavors, that person needs to be quiet about what it means to work hard. In the world we inhabit, buying a winning lottery ticket does not constitute working hard.

The disdain that Zell has for those whose hard work isn’t rewarded by the so-called free market to the extent he has accumulated wealth reflects a very deep and disturbing mindset. People who do well through luck, accident of birth, or circumstances beyond their control too often translate that experience into a claim that they work harder and are succeeding through merit. Too often they subscribe to the flip side of that translation, deeming people who are down on their luck to be nothing more than lazy takers who don’t work hard enough. As another commentator suggests, in line with comments I’ve made since the outbreak of the war on the poor and middle class, “More and more, these people sound like the French royalty and aristocracy right before the revolution. Perhaps they will create the same outcome for themselves.” I wonder if Sam Zell can afford to purchase some history books. I wonder if he can work hard reading them and figuring out the absurdity of how he views people.

A recent case, Richardson v. Comr., T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-9, reaches an unsurprising result but nonetheless is disturbing. What’s disturbing is not the opinion, but the underlying facts.

In 2006, the State of California removed the taxpayers’ four children from their home, and the children did not live with them during 2008 or 2009, and presumably during 2006 or 2007. When the taxpayers filed their 2008 joint federal income tax return, they claimed four dependency exemption deductions for the children, and also claimed a child tax credit. They did the same thing on their 2009 joint federal income tax return.

The IRS issued a notice of deficiency, denying the deductions and the credits. The taxpayers filed a petition with the Tax Court, which agreed with the IRS that the taxpayers were not entitled to the deductions and credits because the children did not reside with them during 2008 or 2009, and because the taxpayers failed to show that they provided any support for the children.

It is disturbing that taxpayers would claim dependency exemption deductions and child tax credits with respect to children who did not reside with them. It is even more disturbing that something happened to prompt the State of California to remove the four children from the taxpayers’ home.

Most of the time, when someone complains about tax being complicated, the reason is on account of what lawyers call the substantive law. In other words, the rules for computing tax liability are complex. Not only are computations sometimes reminiscent of those long-ago algebra classes, but determining how transactions are classified requires digging through general rules that are curtailed by exceptions, exceptions to exceptions, exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, special rules, and transitional rules. Fortunately, computer software can assist with much of the computational frenzy, assuming the programmers understand what needs to be done.

On the other hand, sometimes the complexity of tax arises from what can be confusing procedures. One might expect that the more complex the substantive tax law, the more complex the tax procedure. But that’s not the case. Some of the most vexing procedural snags can arise with respect to taxes that are computed rather easily.

For example, real property taxes are computed by multiplying the assessed value of the property by the tax rate. Sometimes a special rule permits reducing the assessed value. Sometimes a person qualifies for a reduced rate. Not infrequently, a property owner qualifies for a flat dollar reduction of the tax computed after multiplying the assessed value of the property by the tax rate. In almost every instance, the taxing authority almost always computes the tax and sends a bill to the property owner.

The fun begins when assessed values are increased and the property owner wants to appeal. If the property owner files the appeal before the bills are sent, in some jurisdictions taxing authorities can adjust the bill so that the old assessed value is used pending the outcome of the appeal. But in some instances the news that the assessment is being appealed doesn’t reach the folks who send out the property tax bills, and the bill that is sent reflects the newly assessed value. A property owner who is appealing the assessment is, in some jurisdictions, permitted to pay an amount reflecting the old assessment. But the property owner who is unaware of how the procedure works is apt to write a check for the amount shown on the bill and then go about trying to get the new assessed value reduced, expecting a refund if the appeal is wholly or partly successful.

According to this Philadelphia Inquirer story, things aren’t working out well in Philadelphia. It seems that most property owners who are appealing their new assessments are unaware that they can pay a real property tax computed by using the old assessment. Apparently the bills for at least 24,000 properties whose assessments are under appeal were sent out with tax amounts reflecting the new assessment. The cause, an official explained, was that the people sending out the bills did not get a list of properties for which appeals had been filed until it was too late to revise the bills. Another official used the word “confusion” to describe the situation. Indeed.

It’s worse. It seems that the owners of roughly 4,600 properties filed appeals even though the assessments on their properties were the same or even less than what they had been. In other words, taxpayers are filing appeals to complain that their taxes have been reduced.

The bottom line is that when a tax bill arrives, whether it is for real property taxes or any other sort of tax, the taxpayer needs to review the bill. In other words, the taxpayer needs to do what an auditor would do when examining financial statements. Look at each number. What is its origin? For a real property tax, look at the assessment notice and compare it to the assessment on the bill. Check the arithmetic. The bill probably is generated by computer software, but computer software is far from infallible. If unsure, get help.

About two months ago, in in If They Use It, Should They Pay?, and its follow-ups, The See-Saw World of Legislating Infrastructure Funding and Noticing a Tax, I described the long and twisted path taken by a simple proposal to raise tax revenues in Pennsylvania to fund transportation infrastructure repairs and maintenance. I pointed out that in the long run, the tax increase would be less than the vehicle repair costs incurred if the infrastructure repairs and maintenance were not pursued.

Now comes news, as reported in this story, that the governor of Delaware has proposed a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in that state’s gasoline tax. The revenue would be used to provide an additional $500 million to fund repairs and maintenance on the state’s transportation infrastructure. The average driver would pay an additional $57 per year, certainly far less than the cost of hitting just one unrepaired pothole. In addition to improving transportation safety, the work would create jobs.

It takes only one transportation catastrophe, such as the one last week in the nation’s southeast, to demonstrate the need for government and the need to fund government. The efforts to portray taxes as evil, though initially resonant with too many people, are being exposed as simplistic, misleading, and dangerous.

The People’s Court, with Judge Milian, has been the subject of two previous MauledAgain posts, The (Tax) Fraud Epidemic, and TV Judge Gets Tax Observation Correct. I have highlighted the importance of retaining records has been highlighted in more than a few posts over the years, including The Importance of Tax Record Keeping, The Aggravation of Tax Paperwork, and Failing to Keep Those Records Can Increase Taxes. Aside from the need to keep records, I discussed the question of how long records ought to be retained in Why the “Toss Tax Records After Three (or Seven) Years” Advice is Bad.

Several days ago, another episode of The People’s Court put the record keeping issue in front of however many viewers were paying close attention. The case involved a car owner who was unhappy with a body shop’s work in fixing a window in the car. As the case progressed, one of the questions that surfaced was the delay experienced by the plaintiff, who brought the car to the body shop many months before the window was replaced. The plaintiff alleged that the body shop repeatedly claimed that the reason for the delay was the supplier’s failure to supply the window in a reasonable period of time. The defendant disagreed, and tried to put the responsibility for the delay on the plaintiff. The defendant explained that the window arrived at the body shop within two days of when the plaintiff brought the car to the shop. Judge Milian asked the defendant for evidence that the window ordered for the plaintiff’s car had arrived within two days as defendant claimed. The defendant replied that he did not have any records because he doesn’t keep records for transactions that occur as long ago as two years. Judge Milian expressed surprise, pointing out that, as a business, he is required to retain records supporting income and deductions for at least three years. The defendant explained that because he did not make any money he didn’t need to retain records, and then claimed that he did not make any money on the particular job in question and so didn’t need to keep records of that job.

Two points need to be made for the benefit of all taxpayers, including business owners. First, records must be maintained for all the transactions during the year that affect tax liability computation, regardless of the income or loss computed with respect to a specific job, task, client, or customer. Second, even if a taxpayer loses money for a taxable year, records need to be kept in order to prove that the deductions exceed the gross income. Put another way, losing money is not a justification for not keeping records or for tossing out records too soon. In this particular case, the defendant’s business practices reflected other record-keeping deficiencies, such as a receipt for the customer that simply described the make and model of the car, with no notations referring to why the car was in the shop or any other details of the job.

During one of the breaks, the show’s host asked two spectators what they thought about keeping records. One of them replied that business owners need to retain records, if for no reason other than tax purposes. The other spectator simply said, “What she said.” It is refreshing that these two spectators understood the significance of record retention. Later, the show’s host advised viewers to keep records for six years. As readers of MauledAgain know, I think that six years is too short. As I stated in To E-File or Not to E-File: That is The Question:

Though some people don't hold onto their tax returns for more than say, 3 or 7 years, relying on the statute of limitations, I recommend holding onto all returns, if for no reason other than to maintain records of basis and to guard against the strange day when the IRS claims a return from some years ago was not filed, which would open the statute of limitations, and which can be rebutted quite easily by providing a copy of the return.

And if the tax reasons for keeping records isn’t sufficiently convincing, the prospect of coming up short in litigation when asked to produce evidence supporting one’s allegations should settle the matter.

Julian Block has a problem. He’s not the only one afflicted with it. It hovers over me, and many others. The problem? When we write things, in the back of our minds is the ever-present awareness that the next hour, the next day, the next week, the next month, can bring one or more changes that makes our words wrong. Tax law affects so many activities, and changes so often, that keeping up with it poses a challenge to taxpayers, tax professionals, and those who write about it. When someone is as prolific a writer as Julian is, a condition with which I can relate, keeping an assortment of tax books up to date is a never-ending task. Not unexpectedly, Julian rises to the occasion.

And so it comes to pass that eight months after reviewing the 2013 edition of Julian Block’s “Tax Tips for Marriage and Divorce” in Julian Block Looks at Marriage, Divorce, Affairs, Engagements, and Cohabitation in the Shadow of Tax, I have been given the opportunity to look at his 2014 edition. Once again, Julian gives his readers good reason to replace the book currently on their shelves, and provides those unfamiliar with his books a reason to make room for his latest effort. Though it is a tax book, it’s a fun read. Julian has dug up all sorts of tax cases involving marriage, divorce, and an assortment of other transactions that offer stories just as easily at home in the scripts of soap operas and reality shows. There are cheaters and thieves, engagement breakers, mistresses and prostitutes, liars and shoplifters, sick children and cash hoards, and a variety of other tales of joy and sorrow.

As usual, Julian has produced a book that is practical, easy to read, and interesting. He gets many of his points across by using the question-and-answer technique, with the questions being easily envisioned as inquiries handed up by someone next door or in the next cubicle at the office. Julian deals with just about every tax issue that pops up when people create and end all sorts of relationships. He explains the marriage penalty and marriage bonus, filing status, alimony, property settlements, child support, death of a spouse, bad debt deductions for loans to spouses that aren’t repaid, legal fees, the impact of divorce and separation on dependency exemptions and the child tax credit, the tax consequences of residence sales by married couples, and the impact of social security benefits. Julian explains how tax returns can open the door to discovering assets hidden by a spouse before or during the deterioration of a marriage.

The book concludes with a chapter on withholding computations, a chapter on amending returns, and a chapter on using IRS publications. He addresses these concerns not only in the context of relationships but also as issues facing taxpayers generally no matter their relationship status.

As I noted with respect to the previous edition, the title of the book is misleading. It’s difficult to make the title of a tax book, or for that matter, a tax course, technically correct and yet succinct. Julian does not limit himself to marriages and divorces. For example, he examines the tax challenges faced by cohabiting individuals. He considers whether an unmarried woman can deduct the cost of contraception, and whether the cost of gender reassignment surgery is a deductible medical expense. But as I tried to construct a revised title for Julian’s book, I found myself wallowing in painfully long captions, so I gave up! But don’t give up the chance to acquire this book.

Recently I’ve been asked, by people expecting federal income tax refunds, why it is taking so long for the tax filing season to get started. The answer is easy. As reported in this and similar stories, the delay is a direct consequence of the government shutdown last fall. Originally scheduled for January 21, the tax filing season opening day has been pushed back to January 31. Considering that the shutdown spanned 14 days, it is worth noting that the IRS managed to trim four days from the delay.

Why does it matter? There are, of course, those folks who will be waiting for at least an additional 10 days to receive their refunds. Because the April 15 date cannot be changed by the IRS, it also means tax return preparation work will be squeezed into a shorter period of time. In some instances, taxpayers will decide, perhaps at the urging of their preparers, to file extensions and submit tax returns later in the year. For some taxpayers, that’s not necessarily an advantage.

This is not the first year in which a tax filing season has been delayed. There have been times when the delay was caused by last-minute tax law changes enacted by Congress late in the preceding calendar year. It takes time for the IRS to prepare forms, update instructions, rewrite its publications, revise computer programs, and train employees, to mention just a few of the many tasks triggered by tax law changes.

Life for taxpayers would be much easier if the Congress would act responsibly when dealing with the tax law. Not only would taxpayers find it easier to plan and easier to file tax returns, the reduction of time pressure on the IRS would free the agency to provide more assistance to taxpayers. Waiting until the last minute to enact tax law changes gives politics priority over fiduciary duty. That’s wrong. Shutting down the government also give politics priority over fiduciary duty. That’s wrong.

Americans deserve better. When are they going to insist on it? Better yet, when are they going to vote for it?

A recent Tax Court case, Elder-Douglas v. Comr., T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-7, illustrates how not to compute a casualty loss deduction. The taxpayer’s vehicle was involved in an accident, and the insurance company determined that it was unsalvageable. The insurance company paid the taxpayer $47,950 for the vehicle, after subtracting a $50 deductible. The taxpayer claimed a $12,020 casualty loss deduction on account of the loss of the vehicle. The taxpayer computed the deduction by subtracting the $48,000 from $60,020, the original value of the vehicle. However, the first step in computing the amount of a casualty loss deduction is to subtract the insurance recovery from the difference between the value of the property immediately before the casualty and the value of the property immediately after the casualty, unless the taxpayer chooses to use cost of repairs as a substitute measure, though that was not relevant in this case. Because the taxpayer did not provide evidence of those values, and because the Tax Court was unwilling to assume that the vehicle’s value immediately before the accident was the same as its value when it was new, it upheld the determination of the IRS that the taxpayer was not entitled to a casualty loss deduction.

It is possible, though perhaps not likely, that the taxpayer’s vehicle was worth more than $48,000 immediately before the accident. If the taxpayer had acquired and presented proof of such a value, the taxpayer might have been entitled to a casualty loss deduction, depending on how the other limitations, especially the ten-percent-of-adjusted-gross-income reduction, played out. Obtaining that information is not difficult, but is something that most people don’t think of doing at the time. However, it is not impossible to acquire that information after the fact. As I tell my students, facts matter, disputes over facts are at the core of far more cases than are disputes over the law, and getting facts is something lawyers need to spend a good bit of time doing. So, too, should taxpayers, especially with respect to facts that only they can produce.

In previous posts, I have pointed out that the cost of failing to raise taxes or user fees can exceed the increase thereby avoided. In Liquid Fuels Tax Increases on the Table, I wrote, “Leaving gasoline taxes at their current levels guarantees more bridge collapses, and pothole-caused front-end alignment repair costs that will take more out of motorists’ pockets than the proposed tax increases.” I made the same point in You Get What You Vote For, when I predicted that “front-end alignment spending will skyrocket past the small amounts that would have been paid if the [highway repair tax funding] proposal had been enacted.” In Zap the Tax Zappers, I explained why tax evaders need to face the consequences with these words, “Lest this be thought too rough, think of the person who dies when their vehicle hits a pothole and goes out of control, a pothole not repaired because of revenue shortfalls and spending cuts triggered by the actions of a group of people who refuse to pitch in and fulfill the obligations of citizenship.” In Potholes: Poster Children for Why Tax Increases Save Money, I shared news from the United Kingdom that the cost of damage caused by potholes exceeds the tax or user fee necessary to fix the pothole, and news from Los Angeles that potholes cause $750 of damage annually for each vehicle.

Now comes news about the scope of pothole damage in the United States, much of it caused by potholes either left unrepaired or fixed only after long delays on account of revenue shortfalls. In this Philadelphia Inquirer article, Ben Finley reports that each year, according to Independent Insurances Agents and Brokers of America, drivers file roughly 500,000 insurance claims for pothole damage and spend almost $5 billion on repairs. As best as I can tell, those numbers do not include hours lost driving the vehicle to and from the repair shop, the inconvenience of cancelling or rescheduling other events, and the overall negative impact on the economy. Nor is it clear if those numbers include medical expenses and other collateral damage arising from the consequences of hitting a pothole. The cost would be even higher if states barring lawsuits against highway departments for failure to repair potholes eliminated those legal barriers.

There are times when it makes sense to increase taxes or user fees in order to prevent even higher costs. Given the choice between paying an additional $150 in highway user fees or $750 in pothole repair costs, rational people would choose the former. Yet most people are willing to gamble, thinking that they are immune from pothole collisions or that they are in some way sufficiently special to have the ability to avoid potholes. The anti-tax crowd plays on this limbic system reaction to reality, parlaying people’s emotional weakness into political gains for those who benefit from tax reductions. Certainly the person who avoids a $150 tax or user fee increase only to incur a $750 repair bill had not received a benefit, but understanding that outcome before the fact appears to be a significant challenge for a huge number of voters.

As I concluded in Potholes: Poster Children for Why Tax Increases Save Money, “[T]he ultimate conclusion is that the anti-tax folks are working at cross-purposes with themselves. That comes as no surprise to me. Hopefully it comes as a wake-up call surprise to those seduced by the pied piper claims that people save money when they pay fewer taxes. The choice is easy to understand. Pay a little bit now or pay much more later.” I wrote that seven months ago. Later has arrived, and people are paying, paying much more.

Last week, a tax colleague at another law school pointed out the use of the term “IRS Code” in a Wall Street Journal story. This misleading reference, though common, surely cannot be accidental every time it occurs. On at least two previous occasions in Is Tax Ignorance Contagious? and Code-Size Ignorance Knows No Boundaries, I have criticized the use of the term “IRS Code” by people from whom I expected better.

Though sometimes the use of IRS Code is accidental, and in most of those instances probably a matter of someone uneducated in tax picking up the term from someone else, in too many instances the use of the term “IRS Code” is intentional. Why would someone intentionally make an error? The answer is simple. Someone who intentionally uses this term, knowing full well that the proper term is “Internal Revenue Code,” does so in order to sucker people into thinking that the IRS is responsible for what is in the Internal Revenue Code. Who benefits from shifting public unhappiness with the tax law to the IRS? Why, the people who are responsible for the Internal Revenue Code, specifically, members of Congress, their staffs, and the lobbyists who have procured much of what pollutes the tax law.

Unfortunately, the term “IRS Code” is going viral. More than 350,000 hits appeared when I put the term into a google search. The faster this nonsense spreads, the more difficult it becomes to eradicate its use. Unlike some errors, which are annoying but not particularly harmful, this error causes great harm and is particularly nefarious because it is the product of deliberate attempts to manipulate people. Until Americans get themselves educated about what matters, they will continue to be played and continue to complain about afflictions within their ability to eliminate. It is time to speak up and object whenever someone uses the misleading “IRS Code” term.

Last week, before the Senate vote on the extension of unemployment benefits, Pennsylvania’s Senator Pat Toomey, released a statement explaining his position and why he intended to vote against the bill. According to this story, Toomey said, “I have voted to extend unemployment benefits beyond the 26 weeks in the past. Unfortunately, this bill does not address the underlying problem. It does nothing to boost economic growth or spur job creation. A better approach would be to address the Administration's job-killing policies, such as Obamacare, the War on Coal, and our overly complex tax code.”

Look carefully at the last sentence. Toomey claims that the Obama Administration has job-killing policies. That may or may not be true. Toomey then provides three examples of what he considers to be the Obama Administration’s job-killing policies. The first is Obamacare. Perhaps Obamacare kills jobs. Perhaps it does not. The second is the so-called War on Coal. Perhaps that policy kills jobs. Perhaps it does not. The third is the complex tax code. Perhaps the complex code kills jobs. Perhaps it does not. What is manifestly absurd about Toomey’s statement is the description of the complex tax code as a policy of the Obama administration. The tax code is a creature of the Congress. Its complexity arises from legislation enacted before Obama became President. Though some of Obama’s economic proposals would add complexity to the income tax law, something for which I have been generous in criticism, those proposals have not been enacted and thus are not part of the complexity Toomey dislikes.

If Toomey truly dislikes the complexity of the tax code, he ought to know what to do. In case he does not, I’ll help him out. First, repeal the complex provisions that exist because special interest groups purchased the enactment of those complex provisions. Second, repeal the complexity that arises from using the income tax law for social policy purposes. Third, restructure, rewrite, and simplify what remains. Most of all, join with the other members of Congress in standing up and taking responsibility for what Congress has created. Stop with the feeble and disgraceful attempts to hold the executive branch responsible for the shortcomings of the federal legislature.

It’s inescapable. It’s the monster that will not die. I have complained about tax ignorance many times, including Tax Ignorance, Is Tax Ignorance Contagious?, Fighting Tax Ignorance, Why the Nation Needs Tax Education, Tax Ignorance: Legislators and Lobbyists, Tax Education is Not Just For Tax Professionals, The Consequences of Tax Education Deficiency, The Value of Tax Education, More Tax Ignorance, With a Gift, Tax Ignorance of the Historical Kind, A Peek at the Production of Tax Ignorance, When Tax Ignorance Meets Political Ignorance, Tax Ignorance and Its Siblings, Looking Again at Tax and Political Ignorance, and Tax Ignorance As Persistent as Death and Taxes, Tax Commercial’s False Facts Perpetuates Falsehood, and Tax Ignorance Gone Viral. Several days ago, another encounter with tax ignorance left me cognizant not only of how widespread this problem has become, but also of how pernicious it might be.

This time, it was a stranger posting a comment on a facebook friend’s page. When I read the comment, I had to shake my head. Anyone who knows anything about taxes should immediately spot the errors. According to the stranger, whose name I am not disclosing:

Social security has a max payout in benefits. A quick google shows it's at 3425 a month or roughly 41,100 a year. If somebody made 10,000,000 in a year and paid 6.7% in SS taxes, they would be paying 670,000 a year for something they would only see 41,000 of. Even at .7% they are currently paying more into a system than they would ever see in a return from that system.

In reality the rich are already subsidizing SS. The poor and the shrinking middle class are the ones who are taking more out of the system than they are paying in. You either want socialism or you don't.

The first error is that the combined rate is 7.65 percent, not 6.7 percent. The second error is that the old-age portion of FICA, setting aside the Medicare portion, is 6.2 percent, not 6.7 percent. The third error, one that goes to the heart of the absurd point that the strange was trying to make, is that a person who has wages in 2014 of $10,000,000, would pay the old-age portion of the tax only on the first $117,000 of wages. The person would not come close to paying $670,000 a year. The person would pay $7,254 in the old-age portion of the tax.

Of course, I posted a reply. I pointed out the major error, and explained that there is a $117,000 cap on the amount of wages subject to the old-age portion of FICA. And I noted that the entire point being made by the stranger “goes down the drain” and that the rich do not subsidize social security. I didn’t waste my time getting into the actuarial computations that factor in earnings on the amounts contributed by workers, the impact of amounts contributed by employers who, theoretically at least, would pay higher wages but for the employer portion of FICA, the fact that there are retirees who die before living long enough to losing out, and the financial stability of the system. When someone falls down trying to ride a tricycle, it’s not time to put them on a motorcycle.

The concern is that this misinformation, to use a kind word, will go viral, and hordes of unwitting people anxious to cast blame on people other than themselves will jump on the “the rich subsidize social security” bandwagon. The campaign to cast the middle class and the poor as the ones responsible for the sins of the evil elite is picking up steam, thanks to the increasing desperation of those whose misdeeds are increasingly coming to light.

How does this informational garbage get started? There are three possibilities.

The first is that the stranger, independently and on his own, conjured up his absurd statements, blindly tossing about facts without knowing the reality. Afflicted with ignorance, he tossed out conclusions too easily grabbed by others. Surely he did no or insufficient research. Was he the victim of inadequate K-16 education? Probably, but even if he could demonstrate that no one ever taught him the basics of social security that ought to be learned by every American, there is no excuse for his failure to educate himself or to seek assistance from those who are qualified.

The second is that the stranger, knowing full well the truth, nonetheless dished out lies in order to advance a political agenda important to that increasingly desperate group of tax and government haters. This sort of behavior is evil.

The third is that the stranger simply repeated something picked up somewhere else. Again, the stranger surely did not fact-check the assertions, because doing so would have revealed the truth. That the stranger refers to google, though not claiming to have used it himself, to prove what he claims is the maximum monthly social security benefit suggests that the stranger either failed to check the other information, or conveniently chose to ignore the truth. The person or persons from whom the stranger picked up the misinformation either themselves were ignorant or lied. At some point, though, the chain reaches back to the originator, and it is far more likely that the originator lied than simply manifested ignorance.

When people complain about the polarization of the country, when commentators lament the divide between citizens, and when politicians pretend to care about the erosion of the nation’s strengths, they need to understand that the gap is the product of a campaign that would not have succeeded but for the lies. Ultimately, the responsibility for the successful future of this nation is in the hands of the citizens, who have a moral obligation, and sometimes a legal obligation, to educate themselves before tossing off nonsense that can snowball into dangerous crowd-baiting.

If anything, this episode ought to convince Americans that it is time to stand up to, and call out, the liars, and to rescue the ignorant by bringing education back to what it once was, a feature of American democracy of which the nation once was proud. An uneducated citizenry is a breeding ground for tyranny.

Two and a half-years ago, in Tax Complexity: Why?, I explained that in the seven years between the first and second editions of Tax Management, Inc.’s 597 T.M., Tax Incentives for Economically Distressed Areas, one of the tax portfolios I have written, the number of what I call qualified distressed areas increased from six to 14, the number of qualified assets grew from 11 to 17, and the number of tax benefits for taxpayers who meet the requirements for operating a business or making investments in a qualified distressed area grew from 19 to 93. Some years ago, Congress decided to classify certain areas as one or another type of zone, with the intention of using the tax law to jump-start the economies of localities in economic distress. The tax law has been complicated with empowerment zones, enterprise communities, renewal communities, the New York Liberty Zone, the Gulf Opportunity Zone, the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone, economically distressed production areas, recovery zones, and a variety of other zones.

Has all of this tax zoning worked? One perspective is that it has, which explains the creation of additional programs. The other perspective is that it has not, which explains the creation of additional programs. If the first type of zone worked, then why not simply add additional distressed areas to the list of places qualifying for its benefits? Actually, that was done with one of the zones. But, for the most part, Congress continues to create new types of zones, each a little different, each posing traps for the unwary, each wrapped up in hyper-technical vocabulary, conditions, tests, and exceptions. Aside from the inappropriateness of using the tax law for social policy purposes, which also shifts these spending grants from the spending side of the federal budget ledger, it is inefficient and unwise to continue creating variations on the theme. There is no reason that the Congress cannot create one type of zone.

And now the President has announced the first five Promise Zones. Just what the tax law and the nation need, yes? No. Why not simply add these areas to the list of empowerment zones, or enterprise zones, or renewal communities, or recovery zones? Why not keep it simple? The answer is simple. Special interest groups, lobbyists, and politicians all benefit from the creation of more complexity, with special breaks for their “special” friends. No longer is the question whether it is beneficial for the common weal. Instead, it is measured by what can be hammered out for those who are too special to be included within an existing group.

I close with the final paragraph from Tax Complexity: Why?:

Isn’t it time that people get a handle on how much spending has been enacted in the tax law? Ought not economic benefits be treated in the same manner, whether they are direct grants or disguised grants hiding in complex Internal Revenue Code provisions? Is it not possible to create one set of rules for economically distressed areas? Why was it not enough to have empowerment zones? Why add renewal communities? And enterprise zones? Why are some tax benefits available to the Kansas disaster area but not the Hurricane Ike disaster area? Why are the special rules for the Midwestern disaster area different, and in some instances slightly different so as to catch the unwary off-guard, than those applicable to the Rita GOZone? Why are there different rules for the Hurricane Katrina disaster area and the GOZone, considering that the former is pretty much the latter? It’s not as though each time around, Congress refined the provisions and made them better or easier to understand. To the contrary, each of the many dozens of times Congress has added, modified, twisted, or tinkered with the provisions, the language became denser and longer. Why?

Why? Because Congress doesn’t get it. At all. Nor, in this instance, does the Administration.

I continue to be amazed by the number of people who insist that the solution to the job creation challenge is to reduce taxes. More than three years ago, in Job Creation and Tax Reductions, I wrote:

Will they create jobs if their taxes are reduced or if their tax cuts are extended? Not necessarily. A person does not “create a job,” that is, hire a person for a position that previously did not exist, simply because the person’s tax cuts are extended. People do not hire other people for the sake of doing so. They hire other people if they have work that needs to be done. Extending tax cuts does not cause an increase in the amount of work that needs to be done.

Less than a year later, I returned to the issue, in Why the Tax Compromise is a Mistake, explaining:

If the job creators want a cut in their tax liabilities, they need to do what I’ve been advising them to do for quite some time. Hire people, take the compensation deduction, thereby reduce taxable income, and watch tax liability go down. It’s that simple. Corporations and wealthy individuals are awash in cash, but they’re not creating jobs. Nor will they create jobs as their cash hoards grow from continued tax breaks. I explained this, for example, in Job Creation and Tax Reductions. The promise of jobs is an empty promise. By the time America realizes this, it will be too late.

Though increasing numbers of economists and commentators are beginning to comprehend the adverse consequences of buying into the “tax breaks create jobs” nonsense, a vocal slice of Americans continue to chant the mantra of the very few who have done well on account of the tax breaks for the elite. I continue to wonder why those who are being economically disadvantaged by specific policies continue to support those policies.

Suppose, for a moment, that tax rates were reduced to zero. Would there be a rush by businesses to hire people? No, there would not be. There would be a rush to increase prices, as business owners calculate that their customers can afford to pay more. Inflation would increase, ultimately leading to more economic difficulties and more job losses. As I consistently point out, businesses do not hire people if there is nothing for those people to do. For those people to have something to do, there needs to be demand. Demand increases when a wide swath of the population has the resources to purchase goods and services. The shifting of wealth and income into the hands of an elite few who control the economy has reduced the resources of the consumer class, and that is why the economy continues to underperform. Until Main Street understands that it ought not to try piggy-backing on Wall Street or Wall Street’s tax policy arguments, Main Street will continue to die a slow economic death.

The focus on using the tax law to encourage people to create jobs is one side of a coin, and it’s the side that turns up flat when tossed. A little more than two years ago, in Taxing Capital to Help Capital, I shared a perspective on modern capitalism that is finding adherents across political and economic spectrums. Specifically, I tossed out this suggestion:

Perhaps another approach is to use the tax law not only to reward those who create jobs, as the current tax law supposedly does, but also to punish those who fail to create jobs. Two-edged swords are much more effective that one-sided blades. The mechanism for doing this already is in place. It’s the corporate accumulated earnings tax, which is avoided by companies that claim they are hoarding profits for “future growth.” Nonsense. Those who wish to avoid the tax can invest the profits in construction of productive facilities and hiring of employees. And the tax needs to be extended to all business entities. I can hear the howls now. “You will kill capital.” To the contrary, capital is killing itself by focusing on short-term profit at the expense of long-term investment in labor. Capital needs to be taxed to save itself.

Nothing in the ensuing 27 months has done anything to change my mind. Yet during that 27 months, too many people jumping on or staying on the elite bandwagon haven’t noticed the cliff at the end of the road. Those “cut tax” sound bites might sound appealing, but so did the pipes of the Pied Piper.

Last Friday, in Earn Property Tax Rebates by Shopping?, I pointed out that when visiting a friend, I had noticed a sign that promised property tax credits to residents who shop in town. Residents obtain a card from the township, and present it at participating merchants when making a purchase, earning rebate credits applied to reduce the property tax bill. I noted that I didn’t know how long the program has been in effect, how successful it has been, or what percentage of residents and businesses are participating.

Clearly I had more learning to do about this program. That’s not a surprise. A reader of MauledAgain sent me links to similar programs in two other New Jersey towns. So the tally at this point is three: Marlboro Township, Bayonne, and <"http://www.voorheesnj.com/shop-voorhees-info.php">Voorhees Township. According to a facebook post, the program is or was being considered in Caldwell, but the link in that post goes to a dead page. Digging around a bit, I found the program in effect in Highland Park, ready to be implemented in Pequannock, and under consideration in Washington Township and other municipalities. A more detailed explanation of how the programs work is in this report, which also asserts that the program in Marlboro Township may have been the first in the country. To determine whether a program exists in a particular town, shoppers can visit this web site. Using that site, I discovered that the Property Tax Reward Program was developed by Fincredit, Inc., according to this explanation.

A member of the New Jersey legislature, according to this news release has introduced legislation that “codifies current practice and retroactively validates any municipality that implements the property tax rewards credit program.” The legislator explains that the program is “a win-win for everyone and will, I believe, serve as a model for towns throughout the U.S.” What I haven’t figured out is why the program started in New Jersey before legislation was introduced, and why it did not begin elsewhere.

The program, however, is not without its critics. For example, a candidate for mayor of Bayonne, in this letter to the editor explains that local merchants must pay roughly $300 to FinCredit for a card reader, must offer a discount to shoppers, must agree to funnel a portion of the money received from a customer toward the customer’s property tax bill or rent, and pay 25 percent of the savings to FinCredit. The candidate claims that merchants had already lowered prices to compete with box stores, giving customers savings without the use of a third party company, and notes that nearly half of the four dozen merchants who signed up in Marlboro Township dropped out of the program. The candidate asserts that the sales growth achieved under the program could have been accomplished by spending the money instead on advertising. Similar criticism is offered in this editorial, which also notes that some towns have rejected FinCredit’s propositions. Coming in the context of political campaigns, the best that can be said is that the program is not without controversy.

It remains to be seen whether the program takes hold across New Jersey or across the country. At the moment, it’s not getting the sort of attention one might expect. I would not be surprised to see that change.

A recent posting on a tax listserv grabbed my attention. A tax attorney’s client told him that she was going through a divorce, and had no money. Her accountant told her that because she had no money, there was no reason to file tax returns. Later, when she learned that was not the case, she contacted the tax attorney.

Though the tasks facing the tax attorney are one question, what took center stage in my mind was not only the absurd idea that a person with no money is not required to file tax returns, but also the disappointing news that a professional would give this sort of advice. I’ve discounted steeply the possibility that the client lied, because the client’s action in seeking a tax attorney’s assistance once she learned that the prior advice was erroneous suggests veracity on her part.

There are a few taxes that are based on how much money a person has. There are a few taxes that are based on how much property a person owns, without regard to how much, if any, of that property is held in the form of money. But most taxes are based on factors other than how much money a person has, and this is something that anyone venturing to provide tax advice ought to know. It is not unusual to hear stories about individuals whose income tax withholding is insufficient, for whatever reason, and who spend all of their take-home pay, only to find themselves the following spring owing income taxes but having no money. The lack of money does not reduce the income tax that is due. This happened not too long ago to a graduate of an elite law school, and that story perhaps deserves its own commentary.

There are some basic tax concepts that everyone should know. At the very least, there are tax concepts that every tax professional should know. It is not only disappointing but dangerous for tax advisors to be dishing out clearly erroneous information about taxes.